Forum Replies Created
Guns don’t kill
I don’t believe making more guns illegal will not lower the death rate enough to make it worthwhile to take away people’s rights
Yes I believe that there is always a trade-off between freedom and injuring others
If we outlaw cars nobody would die in car accidents.
It’s always a balance.
Are laws perfect?
Not even close.
Like I said change the amendment and it’s OK.
But you can’t arbitrarily decide this law we ignore because we don’t like it.
Can I also choose which laws I don’t like?August 15, 2019 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm in reply to: Should Wedding gowns for the extended family be discontinued? #1775332
If a man showed up to yeshiva in bathing trunks, is that not a violation of tzniyus ?
I could think of plenty of reasons you could be against gowns, but this one falls short
“The mistake he (and you) are making
is defining “solve the problem” as “stop the scourge””
Twice you pointed out that I am making a mistake, the second time even calling it a critical mistake.
However you accidentally neglected to enlighten us on the proper definition of stopping the problem, or otherwise enlightening us as to the details of the mistake.
I personally think it would further the argument if you were to do so, but that’s just my opinion.
As to the bill of rights, of course it’s not Torah from Sinai and if they want to eliminate it, go right ahead. There is clear guidance as to how to do that legally. If they succeed, well then that right would be gone.
My argument is only that as long as they don’t do that, then it’s a proper fall back.
I was not trying to claim that what I am saying is what health said.
I was only trying to give him proper credit as part of the argument is the same.
Call it my own if that makes it easier to respond to it.
While I don’t agree with everything health wrote I think his argument is this.
The starting point is that like it or not
the bill of rights gives the right to bear arms
People abuse that right by using guns to harm others
If we outlaw many types of guns, will that solve the problem?
Well drugs are a problem, and outlawing them didn’t really stop the scourge.
True, but many who would otherwise have fallen into drug use, didn’t, because they are illegal.
That’s also true but that part is not comparable. Because for people who follow the law, there are many laws outlawing murder and violence, so for them you don’t need to outlaw the actual gun. The question is will outlawing guns prevent those who don’t care about the rule of law from getting them.
To that the answer is, it doesn’t seem to prevent them from getting drugs. (why pick a specific illegal drug is beyond me. It should make no difference)
So you ask, so then just get rid of all laws ?
No. You are forgetting. The starting point is that the bill of rights gives you the right, whether you like that or not.
You want to negate that, you need to show probable benefit
Only issue I can fathom is having an institution with all new staff and members be on the hook for old workers crimes.
Otherwise who cares about the years that passed.
If you go Joseph’s route why is a one year period better?
The issue is secular court
I don’t get it
How do they cross the gender divide?
She can only make a female shaliach and he can only make a male one. So you are back to the same problem.
Maybe sweet little dev can divulge the plans
She has eight more days to use the internet
Hope she makes the most of itAugust 14, 2019 12:11 pm at 12:11 pm in reply to: Should Wedding gowns for the extended family be discontinued? #1774693
the reason they haven’t sent out invitations is because they are grappling with a very thorny issue.
They obviously can’t make a regular wedding as it’s totally not tzniyus for two witnesses to see or speak to fear dev.
So they were going to do it ע”י שליח
But then they ran into a huge problem
Who can be the שליח ?
It can’t be a woman because then it’s the same issue, it can’t be a man because how will they get the מינוי שליחות without talking to dear dev and then he will be a פרוץ, פסול לשליחות.
So they are trying to come up with a proper solution.
Strange why the פוסקים don’t discuss this burning issue.
If you have a solution let them know asap
A++August 13, 2019 3:47 pm at 3:47 pm in reply to: Should Wedding gowns for the extended family be discontinued? #1774374
in israel they dont
Interjection, I don’t have the inclination to go back through the whole thread, but if he really did that then it was deserved what he got
Strange that it took 150 posts for someone to mention the facts instead of just trying to slap me down.
if that was to me i lost you there
have a great day
(it would help if you start your posts with a name so we know who you are addressing)
if i insulted you im sorry
wasnt intentional and im not sure where
Syag you can have your opinion of anything you want
Just don’t extend that “opinion” to ranking out others without just cause.
Again this is not to you specifically it’s to all who are ranking out Joseph on this thread.
Not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Yes you keep explaining. But your explanation has nothing to do with the offense.
He did not offend women on this thread and doesn’t deserve to be called names because someone chooses to be offended where no offense was committed
I think the Women got upset because they have a chip on their shoulder towards Joseph
If he posted tomorrow’s weather they would say he only posted it because he thinks Women are too stupid to look at their weather app.
And the proof is that he posted it exactly at the time they are preparing…….
Is the din that one man cannot be alone with two women, a negative on men or on women?
As I said, perhaps someone in his life had just gone on a rant about that line, which caused him to dredge up this post now.
I could read that line, why do some people in nuts over this? Why is it a big deal? It’s not negative or positive. It just is.
Yes you said that before
It’s called confirmational bias.
It’s uncalled for to attack him here.
If he really is so egregiously anti women you have plenty of places to judiciously attack him.
My question was what did he write on this thread that was so bad.
And to all,
If that long rant from “yeshivaguy”
Really was without proper respect for chazal
I was wrong to even give a semblance of kudos to it.
As I said I couldn’t follow it so I don’t know what it said. But…
Let’s try again
Joseph is being attacked for making nasty comments towards women
Call it what you want
It’s all the same
Joseph said something negative about women, let’s go after him.
So I asked what exactly did he write that is negative.
Not that one can extrapolate negativity, what is actually negative in his comment.
I got an answer that that is not the issue. The issue is bringing up a hot button topic in the nine days.
But then I show you that you wrote he did it to be derisive
So you tell me nuh uh. You said I said denigrate. I never said that I only said derisive don’t conflate the two.
Jump on a wrong word usage and run with it.
So answer this
What did he say to cause derision?
Is that better?
Yes it’s the same basic question.
What was negative about his comment that warranted personal attacks
I’m not sure if your addressing me so I’ll respond in case.
I never backed Joseph’s point on this thread. I said multiple times I don’t even know what his point is.
I only opposed uncalled for personal attacks.
Why I singled you out, may have to do with the fact I responded to the cooties comment which was made by you so I kept going, but it was meant to all who are doing it.
“It was pointed out clearly and explicitly that the response came from your timing. You know that because you read it in at least three posts. Here’s the connection again – the problem was not with the holy words of chazal, it was with you DIGGING THRU SIX YEAR OLD THREADS SPECIFICALLY DURING THE NINE DAYS TO CAUSE DERISION.
That quote is from you.
So I ask you, what I’m his comment causes derision?
That’s what I started with, but you told me you never claimed that.
Firstly my posting name is only my opinion. So you can rest easy on that point
I hear your latest post love and clear. It’s cogent and substantive
Only issue is I started by asking where In this thread does Joseph denigrate women (which would include insinuating that women are inferior to men)
I was taken to task by at least two posters who told me in no uncertain terms that the issue is not that he said anything against women overtly, rather his timing in bringing up this old thread proves his Mysogeny.
Now you are posting, quite clearly I may add, that you SD upset because he is posting for days months and years out of context verses that prove the inferiority of women. And more along the same line.
So I ask my question to you.
What has Joseph posted in this thread about ndk that indicates that his opinion is that women are inferior?
That’s all I’m asking for.
I read it quick.
If it doesn’t seem cogent I skip it
Must be a bad male thing
So basically your taking it out on Joseph because his comment triggers your rent up frustrations from people you come in contact with on a regular basis?
And it’s not really about what Joseph wrote?
Are you a man?
Cause I am and I’ve been lost in this thread like never before
Just wondering if it’s a masculine deficiency
I didn’t praise anyone’s hashkafos
I praised their staying away from personal attacks.
Something which many posters here not only can’t do, but can’t even seem to understand.
By the way philosopher, if someone routinely denigrated men in general by pointing out an intrinsic masculine failing, why would it bother me?
Yes it’s true that’s how hashem created men.
It’s got nothing to do with me .
I just suffer with it.
Yes I’m male
That’s pure conjecture with no basis
maybe the fact that you were #3 just was the straw that broke the camels back
as to all of you getting shocked that i gave kudos to a feminist,
read over what i wrote
i have no clue what that poster wrote, the kudos was that it “SEEMED” to proffer opinion/position vs ad hominem attacks. thats all
i did not agree with the writing as i cant as i dont have a clue what the rant meant!!!
No you got it almost all wrong
I read the entire thread
As I said many times, I can’t make heads or tails of it.
I am calling out insulting Joseph for posting a parve post.
I called you out by screen name for a post you made.
Yep is there something wrong with that?
I did not side with Joseph
I’m not even sure what his point was.
I just don’t like that fact that he gets called dirty names no matter what he writes.
While I could not follow you at all, at least your post seemed to have substance. Kudos.
No need for regret
You said you felt his post was timed to create animus in the nine days. So I ask you animus to or between who?
I thought you meant women that he was denigrating women to create animus.
But you say I’m wrong. So I’m totally lost as to your point
Your comment this time happens to fit the pattern of the liberal element who often do so.
Meaning this time you attacked Joe completely based on conjecture and extrapolation from a time line without responding to his actual point (if there even was one) at all.
You then spelled it out for me that that is exactly what you were doing.
Reading into his comment, unspoken animus towards females based on his previous comments and his timing.
While you may have deduced correctly, you also may have not.
But that did not stop you from attacking him personally. Aka an unprovoked attack, typical of the liberal leaning members here. Short on substance heavy on personal attack and emotion.
If you personally are not liberal minded, that’s wonderful. Doesn’t change what you’ve done here.
I believe this is substantively the same as I posted before just significantly more verbose.
Joseph seems to be the perpetual whipping boy for the more liberal leaning members here, and I personally find it disgusting.
this where i call you liberal?
i dont think you are the totality of the more liberal leaning members here, so at worst i included you in the group.
if you dont think you belong then you are not included,
but i certainly did not directly call you liberal,
Correct my comment to read “were it to be so that your don’t like what he actually said then attack his statement. ”
Much worries than “if you don’t like what he said ”
I didn’t mean to imply that you claimed not to like it.
The opposite, I meant that nowhere did you give any basis nor reasoning nor claim to be against what he said, rather just straight personal attacks. Thanks for confirming my contention.
2) guilty as charged
as one of my other post started off, (the one the mods didn’t let through)
“I am not really able to follow this conversation but it seems like it’s just open season on Joseph ”
4)maybe not specifically with you, just equally with you
5) I’m not sure either, except the final amount which was a direct answer to your “why ”
It was more at the whole attack group.
BTW I think I followed your whole response except (once again)
Care to explain?
Because I could not really believe, until zg laid it out (and now I went back and saw that you did too) fully, that the entire attack against him “in the nine days ” is wholly based on conjecture as to why he resurrected it now.
Joseph seems to be the perpetual whipping boy for the more liberal leaning members here, and I personally find it disgusting.
He often makes bare bones points that get under people’s skin because they don’t fit with today’s ” enlightened ” world, and being as there is not enough there to find factual fault with, they report to name calling. Then asking how it got to be a “you have cooties ” fight.
Call him on what he writes, have the courage to agree, or just stay silent.
And no. I’m not Joseph nor do I have a clue who he is
If you don’t like what he is claiming here, find out what it means, source it and post it.
If you can’t, then maybe he is right (though In this case he is hardly claiming anything.)
And if you are convinced that he cannot possibly be right even though you can’t source it, well that’s just your gut against his.that surely does not give you a right to level personal attacks
Thanks for your reply. I was serious. I never look at the dates and I thought he was replying to someone else who had just posted.
It’s pretty lame in my opinion anyway but at least it’s an answer.
The thread jumped from July 25 2011to being resurrected on April 3 2013 With no-one commenting on its long hiatus.
Id quicker assume that something in his personal life set him off about. This specific topic than assume he was specifically trying to stoke people in the nine days. Perhaps he was bored. But I doubt it was purposeful in the nine days specifically.
Be that as it may he barely said anything about it. The accusations hurled at him are total conjecture. And much worse “in the nine days ” than his actual comments.
It’s nice that people think they know his agenda. But they may be wrong. Attack ideas not people.
In this case It seems there was very little to attack in the idea department so everyone brought out their old grievences against Josef and let loose.
Pretty disgusting IMHO
For some reason the mods didn’t let my post through.
I quoted verbatim every comment of Joseph from this thread.
I guess it was too long.
Please tell me exactly which comment of Joseph on this thread, denigrate woman?
Fly and weasel?
By a woman getting involved
Where do you see that he made it his
“life’s battle cry”?
Every time someone takes a position it becomes their life’s battle cry?
So if there would be an argument about which flavor ice cream is best and he said vanilla,you’d say his life’s battle cry is vanilla ice cream??
Perhaps you really are a woman. And perhaps you are illustrating the flimsy daas of a woman. (though that’s not what the quote means)
And the best offense you can come up with is a spelling mistake? Which may even have been an auto correct???
I guess Josef must be on solid ground
“Chazal did not say it must be so or it always will be so. They spoke of the milieu when it was so. Today it is up to our Chazal to decide if our Nashim are like their ancestors or not.”
Being as “chazal ”
Is an acronym for חכמינו זכרונם לברכה it’s pretty tough to get “chazal” of our days
I stumped everyone!!!
I understand their position fully
Are you claiming they will only force you to pay more To your workers if they commit to spending it in your stores??? Really??
I hope not.
So what you mean is so he CAN spend it if he so desires. Perhaps even in your store.
In shorthand that would be called “he has more money in his pocket “(I guess since I understand money in my pocket, as up to me what to do with it , the two are the same. Those who feel that money in one’s pocket is sortt of evil, would rather phrase it as spending it in your store since that’s what they feel you should be doing with it.)
But again you are still sidestepping the main question.
Why isn’t the first step, to exempt all minimum wage earners from all taxes ????
The government position is that it’s not enough money to live on.
So why are they taking some away from those workers through taxes?????
(by the way, the government does not have piles of $$$ because they squander it. Much as many athletes who earned billions over their careers are bankrupt . That doesn’t mean they weren’t rich. They were rich and are stupid. Much like the government.
Someone who makes millions and wastes it all will still get hit at tax Time with a huge bill and can’t Say I’m poor.
So too the government they are mega rich.
No ubiq you sidestepped my question
My point is simply this.
Before the government gets free with my money by upping my workers salary so that he has more money in his pocket, let them free him from any taxes on his salary. I’m English we call that put your money where your mouth is.
When they make me give my worker more money, they also get a raise, effectively they are giving themselves a raise. And they are by far the richest “corporation “in New York.
If they were actually concerned about the poor workers take home pay, the first step would be to free him from his entire tax burden. Then you can move forward from there, perhaps raising the minimum wage also.
But to just force an employer to pay more while at the same time continuing to stick your hands into, and now deeper into, the pocket of the very person you claim to be trying to help, is blatant hypocrisy.
Additionally, not every employer can afford to give his workers a 25% raise.
My point of the ice cream parlor was not an economic point.
It’s to point out the injustice of the legislation on a human level.
You have a mega wealthy entity (government) that gets its money through force (rule of law + threat of punishment)
Telling someone who got his money through others voluntarily surrendering it to him (luxury voluntary purchases aka ice cream)
The following :
Mr worker doesn’t have enough money at the end of the week. Give him more.
Now let’s remember the law applies to all employers including those whose businesses are barely profitable.
I ask you, is that not backwards? Immoral?
Shouldn’t the one who has more money, and got their money through force, without doing anything to deserve it, and is the one claiming to be bothered by the injustice of paying someone what they agreed to, be the one to fork over the extra money???
But no. Tell the guy who got his money by people happily “donating “(meaning voluntarily paying for his merchandise) it to him ,
You pay more while we sit pretty and collect even more now from the guy we claim to be worried about.
BTW why would I be against WIC Food stamps et al …?
So no-one has an answer for me?
All the brilliant economists on this thread?
Someone explain this to me please
A guy opens an ice cream parlor on my corner
He charges 12$ for a small ice cream, pays his workers 12$ an hour and is packed because he created a modern look in his store.
He is making money hand over fist.
He is branded an evil capitalist and Must pay more to the vaunted worker.
He is making his money by convincing others to voluntarily part with their money. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy overpriced ice cream.
Yet the richest corporation in the city by far, is free from all that.
I’m talking about the government.
They make money hand over fist by FORCING people to hand over part of their pay check for nothing in return!! (if they would just be covering police fire and Emergency services your taxes would be negligible)
Maybe they should pay their fair share to the poor and release them from their Tax burden
Then the poor would have more money to spend and the business owners would not have to fire people
A true win win.
It will never happen
Because it’s not about helping the pols.
It’s about beating the rich and keeping the poor, poor while making them think the demoncrats are trying to help them so they keep voting democrat
Instead of raising minimum wage, exempt all minimum wage salaries from all taxes fica included.
Have the government pay both sides of the FICA on minimum wage jobs.
Let the benevolent one spend its money on its benevolence instead of being benevolent on others accounts.
The minimum wage of 12 tax free will be worth more than 15-tax
Let them try to raise taxes to cover the shortfallAugust 2, 2019 10:35 am at 10:35 am in reply to: DO WE REALLY HAVE A GOOD EXCUSE TO LIVE IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ? #1768869
So I guess that’s makers totalitarian communism Jewish.
Do any of us really have a good excuse why we don’t search for remaining dockets of it and move there?August 2, 2019 12:51 am at 12:51 am in reply to: DO WE REALLY HAVE A GOOD EXCUSE TO LIVE IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ? #1768805
Your point?August 1, 2019 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm in reply to: DO WE REALLY HAVE A GOOD EXCUSE TO LIVE IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ? #1768643
I think you are arguing a straw man.
Who claims it is assur?
Even satmar lives there.
I thought the question is
is it a mitzvah ?